Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Anonymous Coward writes "After months of silence and a week of hopeful half-truths, Japanese space officials have finally confirmed that their Mars-bound Nozomi probe is teetering on the brink of failure in its five-year quest to explore the Red Planet. The Nozomi orbiter is one of four spacecraft that are due to converge on Mars in the next two months. The other three probes -- the European Space Agency's Mars Express and NASA's two Mars Exploration Rovers -- are still on track and in good working order, according to the latest status reports. Mars Express is due to enter Martian orbit on Christmas Day and send a British-built Beagle 2 lander to the surface, while the NASA rovers should arrive on Jan. 3 and Jan. 24."

Perish the thought! This is an interplanetary probe, carrying the honor and dignity of the Japanese nation. It will commit seppuku [kyushu.com], as befitting a spacecraft of its' station. It would never commit hari kiri like some common communications satellite.

Of course, I'm not sure who will be the "second". Perhaps one of the other satellites or the Martians can finish the thing off...

Not to ruin the joke, but harakiri and seppuku are exactly the same thing, just different terms for it - one colloquial and one formal.

Not to mention that page you linked to gets it entirely wrong calling the blade used a kozuka - that's a small knife a few inches long. Good luck cutting yourself open with something like that. The blade actually used is a wakizashi.

Seppuku is honorable suicide. The rituals are different for men and women. Men commit seppuku by hara-kiri ("belly cutting") with a wakizashi. Women commit seppuku by cutting their throats with a kozuka. (I don't know if there's a separate term for this act.) Hara-kiri is a fairly crude term, kind of like "kicking the bucket" in English, so if you want to be respectful to a man who's killing himself, you talk about him committing seppuku rather than hara-kiri.

From the article:Friday's JAXA statement denied one Tokyo press report that probe was doomed to impact Mars and possibly contaminate the planet. Such a scenario would violate an international "space quarantine" treaty.

I know we've had a lot of cool reports that microbes have survived exposure to hard vacuum for extended periods, but do we really have to worry about "contaminating" Mars? The craft was probably sterilized pretty well before being launched. Then, a year and a half ago, it got hit with a solar flare strong enough to make it miss Mars the first time... that should have baked any hitchiking bugs pretty well. And then, there's the latest round of Solar hiccups to take into account.

Finally, if the craft does hit Mars, it's going to do it in a totally uncontrolled manner -- 'cause if they get any control, they'll steer it away. That implies a high velocity, which even in the thin Martian atmosphere should melt the craft into slag.

Extremophile bacteria at molten sulfur vents is one thing, but hitchiking in a blob of ablating steel?

And as far as that "space quarantine" treaty... what exactly is the punishment for sneezing in space?

Yeah, I raised my eyebrow when I read that too. What I thought was funny was how they mentioned Mars Express is due to enter Martian orbit on Christmas Day and send a British-built Beagle 2 lander to the surface, while the NASA rovers should arrive on Jan. 3 and Jan. 24

So they are worried about a man made meteor seeding the planet but sending rovers to the surface is somehow alright???

hey, if we do "contaminate" the surface, that will save genetic engineers a lot of trouble if we ever try to terraform. "space quarantine treaty", now there's a treaty we've got to get rid of.

I think the "contamination" they don't want is typically referred to (terrestrially) as "litter." I understand that (thanks quite a bit to the Russian program, but also to "just leave it here" Americans) the moon is quite littered with a bunch of junk that either didn't work or doesn't any more. Biocontaminant or not, trying to do geologic science and having to move aside slagged lander parts that drilled into Tharsis to do it would be a little annoying...

hey, if we do "contaminate" the surface, that will save genetic engineers a lot of trouble if we ever try to terraform

Right, why not get it over with? There's plenty of planets to try and discover life on (though most will take hundreds of years to get to). What's more important is we (humans) need another place to call home just in case we get nailed with some global catastrophy. But I suppose we'll have to battle with the dilemma of truth vs. survival for some time longer.

I don't suppose you've heard of common earth organisms like Deinococcus Radiourans? This bug has such potent DNA-repair mechanisms that it survives very heavy irradiation (it apparently evolved them to recover from DNA damage during long periods of dryness, but they work for radiation-induced breakages too). And substantial parts of a spacecraft survive even an uncontrolled atmospheric entry; look at how much of Columbia came down, including large pieces of astronauts.

If someone sterilized the bird with something like chlorine monoxide it's a different matter, but I've seen nothing about this and an orbiter wouldn't normally need to be sterilized like a lander. That's why Galileo met its fiery end.

Bacteria survived being on the moon for years. Parts from (IIRC) a Surveyor probe were brought back by an Apollo mission. Granted, these bacteria were found inside an instrument, but since the Japanese probe may shatter on impact there is a contamination risk, I think.

About the reentry, I'm not sure it will burn up completely. Meteorites crashing on Earth are said to be warm, not scalding hot. Could some rocket scientist jump in and give his view on the reentry? Metal vs stone, Earth vs Mars atmosphere? (Hmm.. re-entry sounds wrong. It's going to enter the Mars atmosphere for the first time)

About the reentry, I'm not sure it will burn up completely. Meteorites crashing on Earth are said to be warm, not scalding hot.

Hmmm... you actually triggered a memory that would have made me write a rather different posting. A quick Google found this page [jas.org.jo] dealing with a meteorite that was seen over Jordan. What appeared to be an area where a meteor fell out of the sky and scorched the land turned out to be the remnants of an unrelated brushfire.

Metallic meteorites have a much better chance of surviving a trip to the Earth's surface than stony meteorites, so increased density means increased survival. Also, small surface area to volume ratios help (a spherical object will survive better than a plate).

At first glance, satellites, being somewhat rounded and made mostly of metal, seem to fit the bill. However, they have voids in them which lower their overall density. Furthermore, if the outer layer of the satellite is breached, then the interior

I'm so full of shit. My remarks about surface area are ok. And it's true that metallic meteorites explode less often than stony meteorites, but not because of density. It may have more to do with the excellent heat conduction and the strength of metal, heat of vaporization, etc.. Here's an excellent page on meteor falls [meteorlab.com].

Don't forget in this case there is no real atmosphere to slow it down. The escape velocity for Mars is a bit over 5,000 metres per second. So it should impact at about that speed. I'm not saying bacteria wouldn't survive... but the impact is bound to cause a lot of frictional heating of the debris, and bugs like radiodurans or even extremophiles may not be able to handle it. Anyway, there's not a lot that can be done from here anyway.

Nature sure doesn't worry, and man is definitely a product of nature. Life spreads by 'contamination', that's what makes it life! Heck, how do we know that all life on earth didn't start by a passing visitor from Alphi Centauri landing, taking a whizz on some rock, declare the place uninhabitable and take off? Those who would stop exploration by complaining about 'human contamination' should get off their high moral horse, put aside their cosmic guilt

1. Orbiters are generally not sanitized to the level that landers are, so there is a higher chance of viable organisms on the Jap probe.

2. I don't know about Japanese orbital policy, but NASA policy requires that probes be launched on an orbit that will cause it to slightly miss it's target.... then when it's almost at the planet the orbital bias is removed so that orbital insertion takes place. So if this were a NASA mission there wouldn't be contaimination if the probe died... it'd just happily whizz on

if its martians shooting them down... martians suck! these things take 5 years to get there! the hit like one out of 10 things we send! who can't aim well enough to hit something when you have 5 years to try?

Tactic #2321: Do not reveal your best weapons to the enemy until the time comes.

Tactic #923874: Make the enemy think you suck.

I'm sure the Martians are using some primitive weapon to shoot them down. This is done in order to confuse the humans and make them think the Martians suck... YOU, my dear human, have fallen for their tricks;)

I'm starting to wonder if we should be sending all these probes out without any chance of recovery or destruction. While it's probable there isn't any other sentient life out there, it's also probable that our efforts to explore our surroundings are affecting or destroying living and non-living celestial evidence.

I keep thinking about those fish that live in caves that we believed were blind from birth, but were actually blinded by our observations, which required orders of magnitude of light more than they were ever accustomed to. Who knows how much Earth biology survives in these probes when they crash land?

Maybe we should put a halt to sending out any more of these things for now and work more on passive observation techniques.

I'm starting to wonder if we should be sending all these probes out without any chance of recovery or destruction. While it's probable there isn't any other sentient life out there, it's also probable that our efforts to explore our surroundings are affecting or destroying living and non-living celestial evidence.

Even if there is contamination from Earth, it should be easily identifiable, because it would consist of microbes that humans encounter on a daily basis. And it's highly likely that life from an

At least there's quite a bit of redundancy with the martian probes. With four going there at once it's quite likely that at least one of them will get there.

The martian probe success rate is so bad that maybe space agencies should launch multiple smaller ones with the expectancy that some will fail to reach their destination than put all their hopes on one larger probe.

Mars Express [esa.int] has to perform one VERY important maneuvre. On December 19th it must eject the Beagle 2 [open.ac.uk] lander whilst still travelling at interplanetary velocity.

If Mars Express fails to shoot Beagle 2 into space, the retro-engine will not have enough thrust to brake Mars Express into Martian orbit. Both probes would then fly past the planet and into solar orbit.

Beagle 2 then travels through space for six days before hitting the Martian atmosphere at interplanetary velocity. Beagle 2's onboard transmitter will not come to life until the probe impacts the surface, so you can imagine that those six days will be pretty tense for the ESA teams.

All being well, Beagle 2 and Mars Express should arrive at their destinations safe and well in the small hours of Christmas morning. By the time we're opening our presents here in the UK, they should have received a signal from the Martian surface.

Now what does THIS mean?At one time parent post (the one +5 now) was "0, Troll". It would signify some of its informations are purposedly false. So I asked if someone could point out what is false - if anything is, because I would like to know whether I can depend on that info or just someone who shouldn't, became a moderator. And now I still don't know whether that post is true or false, only that some people here definitely feel bad about investigating the truth and are ready to waste their mod points in

Wow...and here I was thinking a Lexus or a Honda was a well put together reliable car. But NO, they can't even make a probe that lasts longer than several hundred lightyears. What kinda mileage is that?!

Sounds like you got screwed on a used car. Happens all the time. Most of today's vehicles are "throw-away" models anyhow. If you want something that is likely to last you for a while, it is best to get something pre-1980 or a large truck.

I recently purchased a 1979 Bronco 4x4 - it needs quite a bit of work on it, but nothing really serious (mainly seals between engine/tranny/transfer case). The engine was rebuilt before I bought it, and the rest of it is damn sound (rides better than my 94 Ranger). I have n

1) Light year is an unit of distance, not time, so no "last longer than" but "go further than".2) It's helluva much too - distance it takes one year for light to travel. There's 3 light seconds from Earth to Moon, 7 light minutes to the Sun, about one light hour to Neptune, four light years to Proxima Centauri, nearest star. Mars is at worst several light minutes away from Earth - when

Wow...and here I was thinking a Lexus or a Honda was a well put together reliable car. But NO, they can't even make a probe that lasts longer than several hundred lightyears. What kinda mileage is that?!

I'm starting to get the impression that there is some sort of major hazard somewhere on the way to Mars. It seems that quite a few probes have been getting so beat up as to be partly or completely inoperable on arrival to Martian orbit.

Does anyone have any hard data on the statistics of spacecraft survival for all known Mars missions? Am I incorrect?

There is no solution short of leaving Mars alone. Surely all probes crashed on Mars may have brought bacteria stubborn enough to survive preflight cleaning, the space flight and the entry. They may or may not thrive in future and have some long term effects. If anything, exposure to vacuum and solar flares may only aggravate situation forcing bacteria to mutate.

But do we need any solution? After all, any manned expedition will surely affect Mars more than any probe before. Exploring Mars and fear of contamination are contradictory. There is a saying in Russia, if you are affraid of wolves, then dont explore the forest, meaning that if you want to explore something, you have to overcome your trivial fears.

Dude, I think you missed the point. We are exploring Mars in search of life. If we bring it there oursleves and it overruns the planet, not only will it make any indigenous life even more difficult to find but it may also wipe out any indigenous life forms. Using your analogy, if your looking for a tree, then don't nuke the forest.

Not really. There is, almost certainly, no life on Mars, so searching for it is only one of the reasons for exploration. Another important reason is a prospect of actually doing something useful with Mars (AKA colonization.) For that purpose, contamination is irrelevant.

I live in Japan and have been hearing frequently deceptive information made by japanese organizations. I am starting to believe that, for some reason, the japanese have a real problem with truth and reality.

Recently there have been serious problems with radioactive leakage at nuclear reactors and the japanese companies responsible did initially lie to the public (and the government) about the real situation.

The japanese economy is going through a serious recession and one of the problems is the false statements made from the financial organizations.

Statistics about social trends and problems are dubituous, not to say manipulated. e.g., AIDS statistics.

Discrimination and human rights violations are common, yet the reality is covered by the local news and authorities.

Double standard and unclear laws, even for the japanese themselves, are quite common.

Due to things like these and some others, I have been loosing respect and trust for the japanese, both at a personal and professional level.

Yeah, the Ibaraki reactor leak was insane -- the threat of radiation wasn't that scary, but the constant 'there is nothing wrong... the atom is your freind... this is someone else's fault... stay indoors and look happy or die...' announcements were terrifying.

Ignore the conspiracy theory nutjobs blaming aliens for damaging the Japanese probe. There probably is something wrong (as in intentionally untrue) about this story but there is a simpler and more human explanation for it. If JAXA's version of events is correct, this is the third space vehicle they've had die recently because of solar flares. (See http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/031031090646.2kxsn1 mx.html).

They lost Midori-2 and Kodama in October, both supposedly due to solar flares. According

Wouldn't there be a regular exchange of any existing genetic information between planets already? There are meteorites from Mars found on earth. They weren't steralized. Do the enclosures and pockets of a lander make a big difference? Is a little bacteria okay, but a lot (or a larger variety of bacteria) dangerous? If bacterial contamination was going to happen, wouldn't it have already done so, at least to a very small degree?

I understand erring on the side of caution, but how likely is it that these saft

Maybe I listen to Art Bell too much, but it seems pretty strange that so many probes to Mars have failed in some fashion. Perhaps the Martians don't want us messing up their planet?

Or maybe Mars is a long way away and it's really hard to build a machine that can be expected to work for months on end whilst being baked and simultaneously frozen after being placed in a vacuum and bombarded with radiation. Then to put this complicated device on top of hundreds of tonnes of high explosive so that you can get it moving fifteen times faster than a rifle bullet with the objective of placing it somewhere near a body only slightly larger than the Moon?

Not to mention that no one really has the funds to build the super-probes of yesteryear, so this is unfortunately going to happen with greater frequency. Even looking back at the historic Mars missions where the US sent those super-probes, two out of eight failed before reaching Mars. This shows us that it really has nothing to do with Mars, it's a difficult feat to send probes to Mars even with gobs of cash to spend, and it is no less difficult now than it was decades ago.

Is it just me, or does anyone else detect a sloppiness in our current program that didn't exist before? Maybe it's a symptom of the "Me! Now!" generation-X (and now gen-Y) attitude (disclaimer: I'm not even 30 yet).

Or maybe Mars is a long way away and it's really hard to build a machine that can be expected to work for months on end whilst being baked and simultaneously frozen after being placed in a vacuum and bombarded with radiation...

Which leads me to think that it's a good thing we're not trying very hard to mount any manned missions to Mars in the near future. If mankind has so much difficulty getting a relatively small, unmanned probe into Martian orbit/onto Martian soil, think about how much harder it would

More specifically, everything we have launched to everywhere except Mars seems to have made it

You're forgetting something - well two things actually. The missions to Venus by the Soviets and the Americans were also beset with repeated failures. The Pioneer probes very nearly didn't survive their encounters with Jupiter's radiation belt, Voyager was nearly crippled by a ring particle when it passed Saturn, Galileo had repeated failures...

2. Mars is a very long way away. A Very, Very long way away. It's moving, too, at a good clip. This distance allows more to go wrong on the way than going somewhere closer, like the moon, by an exponential factor....and why, yes, this is rocket science.

(One more reason why Mars is no place to raise a kid. Ooooo, I'm channeling Shatner!)

Nah.... It's the Europans pissed that we didn't go there first. They'll shoot down one probe per year until we meet their demands (an off ramp to Europa on the interplanetary spaceway next to a MickeyD's).

This is probably a crazy troll but the comet thing is still a while off technologically speaking. Flinging them into the atmosphere to burn up would probably be the way to go so it doesn't kick up a 200 year dust storm and cool the planet even more.

As for nukes, I've read proposals that include nuking one or both poles for some quick, cheap heat and atmosphere. sounds pretty cool to me.

Ya know, technically, the sept11 attacks used plane fuel (a derivative of crude oil) as a weapon of mass destruction.

Well, while I'm not disputing the enormity of what took place, at the end of the day it was "only" two buildings that was destroyed; I'm not sure that qualifies as "mass destruction".

By the same token, I'm not convinced that biological or chemical weapons count as being "destructive", as they (presumably) only kill animals. I personally don't like thinking of killing as "destruction"; it s